the school psychologist’s role in the problem solving

James Madison UniversityJMU Scholarly Commons

Educational Specialist The Graduate School

Summer 2018

The school psychologist’s role in the problemsolving process: How assessment can informinterventionRachel LarkinJames Madison University

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/edspec201019Part of the School Psychology Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inEducational Specialist by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationLarkin, Rachel, "The school psychologist’s role in the problem solving process: How assessment can inform intervention" (2018).Educational Specialist. 135.https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/edspec201019/135

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/?utm_source=commons.lib.jmu.edu%2Fedspec201019%2F135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/edspec201019?utm_source=commons.lib.jmu.edu%2Fedspec201019%2F135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/grad?utm_source=commons.lib.jmu.edu%2Fedspec201019%2F135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/edspec201019?utm_source=commons.lib.jmu.edu%2Fedspec201019%2F135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1072?utm_source=commons.lib.jmu.edu%2Fedspec201019%2F135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/edspec201019/135?utm_source=commons.lib.jmu.edu%2Fedspec201019%2F135&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

The School Psychologist’s Role in the Problem Solving Process: How Assessment Can

Inform Intervention

Rachel Larkin

A research project submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY

In

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the degree of

Educational Specialist

Department of Graduate Psychology

August 2018

FACULTY COMMITTEE:

Committee Chair: Dr. Deborah Kipps-Vaughan

Committee Members/ Readers:

Dr. Timothy Schulte

Dr. Dannette Allen-Bronaugh

Dr. Tiffany Hornsby

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv

Abstract ................................................................................................................................v

Introduction and Literature Review .....................................................................................1

The Role of the School Psychologist ...............................................................................1

The Role of Assessment...................................................................................................1

Determination of a specific learning disability. ...........................................................3

The Role of Intervention ..................................................................................................5

Components of an evidence-based intervention. .........................................................6

Intervention Planning Teams and Pre-Referral................................................................8

Using Assessment to Guide Intervention Selection .......................................................10

Methods..............................................................................................................................14

Participants .....................................................................................................................14

Materials ........................................................................................................................15

Procedure .......................................................................................................................15

Results ................................................................................................................................17

How do schools identify a student with a Specific Learning Disability? ......................17

How do schools utilize pre-referral meetings in the problem-solving process? ............17

What interventions are used to help address the academic needs of students and how

are they chosen? .............................................................................................................18

iii

When assessment is used to inform student’s strengths and weaknesses during the

problem solving team process, how does it influence the intervention? .......................22

How does using assessments to inform intervention improve academic outcomes for

students? .........................................................................................................................24

How does using assessments to inform interventions influence school psychologist’s

role in the problem solving process? .............................................................................25

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................27

Limitations .....................................................................................................................31

Recommendations for Future Research .........................................................................33

References ..........................................................................................................................34

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................39

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................44

iv

List of Tables

Table 1. What is typically considered during the pre-referral meeting………………….18

Table 2. What academic interventions do your schools utilize…………………………20

Table 3. Which assessments do you typically use to inform intervention during the

problem solving

process…………………………………………………………………………………...24

v

Abstract

This study serves as an investigation into the role of school psychologists within the

problem solving process, intervention selection, and the role assessment in guiding

intervention selection. School psychologists have many different roles that they can carry

out and the roles of assessment and intervention tend to be the two largest. Assessments

are designed for clinical decision-making and interventions are designed to target the

specific needs of a student. As problem solvers and decision makers, it would make sense

to use the tools that school psychologists have, including assessment and intervention, in

combination in order to help students succeed. The current study provides insight into the

current practices of school psychologists in using assessment to inform intervention and

their functional role in pre-referral meetings. In this study, school psychologists were

asked to complete a survey specific to their current role in pre-referral meetings,

intervention selection, and the role that assessment has in this process. Overall

implications of this study suggest increasing use of assessments to inform intervention

during pre-referral meetings is worthy of more consideration. Assessment continues to

play a large role within the field of school psychology, especially when it comes to

understanding the individual needs of a child. Interventions also play a large role in pre-

referral meetings and are designed to target a child’s needs, which was agreed on

amongst school psychologists as best practice. Therefore, using assessment to inform

intervention may be a direction for school psychological services to move toward as more

systems develop multi-tiered systems of support for intervention.

Running head: THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST 1

Introduction and Literature Review

The Role of the School Psychologist

The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) defines a school

psychologist as someone who “provide[s] effective services to help children and youth

succeed academically, socially, behaviorally, and emotionally” (NASP, 2010, p. 1).

School psychologists at their core are trained to help children; however, this broad

definition does not explicitly state how school psychologists are to help children succeed.

To address this, NASP further states that school psychologists, “conduct effective

decision making using a foundation of assessment and data collection [as well as] engage

in specific services for students such as direct and indirect interventions that focus on

academic skills, learning, socializing, and mental health” (NASP, 2010, p. 1). The varied

roles of the school psychologist cover many aspects of education, which affect a student’s

daily life; however, the roles of assessment and intervention tend to take the forefront

(Merrell, Ervin, & Peacock, 2011). Both roles have their nuances and difficulties which

can make effective decision making difficult, but when done following best practices, can

have a positive impact on a student’s life.

The Role of Assessment

One of the most prominent, and controversial, topics in school psychology is

assessment. Assessments can be used to describe a wide variety of data collection tools,

ranging from standardized tests to informal observations (Merrell, et al., 2011).

Standardized cognitive assessments, or intelligence tests, are most closely associated with

the history of school psychologists. School psychologists often use these assessments to

assist with databased decision-making (Decker, Hale, & Flanagan, 2013).

THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST 2

When assessments are selected in order to make decisions, school psychologists

must be aware of the assessment’s psychometric properties (Merrell, et al., 2011). These

properties refer to an assessment’s validity and reliability. Validity refers to “the extent to

which a test measures what it is intended to measure” (Merrell, et al., 2011, p. 171). For

example, a ruler is intended to measure height and if it instead measured temperature, that

ruler would not be a valid measure. Reliability refers to “the extent to which the measure

is consistent” (Merrell, et al., p. 171). Again, using the ruler, if you measure an item that

is a foot long, the ruler should always measure that item as being a foot long. The norm-

based assessments that school psychologists use go through extensive development in

order to ensure that the assessments are both valid and reliable so that psychologists can

make decisions with data that is measured accurately.

When administering assessments, school psychologists must also be aware of the

ethical guidelines surrounding both the field of school psychology and the role of

assessment. Within the NASP Principles for Professional Ethics, there is an entire section

dedicated to responsible assessment and intervention practices (NASP, 2010). These

guidelines range from selection of appropriate assessments to interpretation of said

assessments. As these assessments are often used to determine if a child has an

underlying disability that may explain their struggles with school, the correct use of these

assessments often lead to weighty decisions. In a school setting, assessments are most

frequently used in order to determine if a student qualifies for special education (Merrell,

et al., 2011). Eligibility for special education is an important decision; therefore, schools

want to collect as much objective data about a child as possible. As such, it is difficult to

separate the role of assessment and the role of eligibility within schools.


Determination of a specific learning disability. One area in education where it

is most difficult to separate assessment and eligibility is when determining if a child has a

Specific Learning Disability (SLD). This is especially true as SLD is the most common

disability to be diagnosed and served within public schools (U.S. Department of

Education, 2015). A Specific Learning Disability is legally defined in the Individuals

with Disabilities Education act 2004 (IDEA 2004) as

“a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved

in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may

manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,

spell, or to do mathematical calculations” (IDEA 2004 §300.8).

There is much debate in the field of school psychology when it comes to how SLD

should be determined within the schools and the role that assessment has in this process

(Hale et al., 2010). Within the parameters of IDEA 2004, there are three regulations

around determining SLD that are meant to help guide schools when they need to

determine if a student qualifies as a student with SLD.

The first of these guidelines states that schools “must not require the use of a

severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether

a child has a specific learning disability” (IDEA 2004 §300.307). Until IDEA 2004 was

passed, many schools were required to use the discrepancy model in order to determine

eligibility, meaning that there was at least one standard deviation difference between a

child’s cognitive and achievement scores (Feifer & Della Toffalo, 2007; Sotelo-Dynega,

Flanagan, & Alfonso, 2011). This model, as gleamed through the definition, was heavily

reliant on assessment. Although this model has fallen out of favor within the world of


education, historically, it maintained the role of the school psychologist as that of

assessor.

The second guideline asserts that states, “Must permit the use of a process based

on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention” (IDEA 2004 §300.307).

This regulation has led to an increase of Response to Intervention (RTI) in schools with

at least 14 states requiring this model to identify SLD (Zirkel, 2012). RTI is a three-tier

structure focused on meeting the needs of all students within a school through three levels

of intensifying intervention (Fiefer & Della Tofallo, 2007; Fletcher, Barth, & Stuebing,

2011, Sotelo-Dynega, et al., 2011). Through this model, the role of assessment, while still

necessary to rule out various disabilities including Intellectual Disability (ID), is

significantly decreased while the role of prevention and intervention are emphasized.

The final guideline around SLD determination states that schools “may permit the

use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a

specific learning disability” (IDEA 2004 §300.307). Although this regulation is broad

and does not specifically guide schools in how to determine if a child has a Specific

Learning Disability, the many assessment experts agree that this is the best way to

practice (Hale, et al., 2010). The consensus between experts is that school psychologists

identifying a pattern of psychological of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) is the most

empirical and clinically sound process. In order to obtain a pattern of strengths and

weaknesses, cognitive and academic ability must be measured. Obtaining psychological

strengths and weaknesses also includes looking beyond the Full Scale IQ and into the


indices of an assessment (Holdnack & Weiss, 2006). As such, with the PSW model,

assessment once again takes a larger role when determining SLD.

The debate around the role of assessment in school psychology, specifically with

how we determine if a child has SLD, continues to this day. Although it is unlikely that

there will ever be unanimous guidance as to how to determine if a student qualifies for

special education, there is some consensus within the field. A panel of experts within the

field of school psychology concluded that the two major models outlined in the first two

guidelines, ability-achievement discrepancy and RTI, are not sufficient for SLD

identification (Hale, et al., 2010). They did support the use of assessment through “other

alternative research-based procedures”, specifically using PSW. Although they did not

support using RTI for determining if a child has SLD, they did support the use of intense

interventions that focus on the learning needs of a child. As such, the role of assessment

appears to have a continued role in determining eligibility while the role of intervention

has an increasingly important role with the treatment of a student’s learning needs.

The Role of Intervention

Interventions have become an important, and in some cases, critical, component

of addressing the needs of a student. Under the parameters of IDEA 2004, schools may

use federal funds to

“develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services…for

students in kindergarten through grade 12 who are not currently identified

as needing special education or related services, but who need additional


academic and behavior support to succeed in a general education

environment” (IDEA 2004 §300.226).

Within a school setting, an intervention can cover a broad number of focuses, as they can

target both academic and behavioral problems in and out of the classroom. While there

are many actions that can be done that are considered interventions, experts agree that

interventions are most effective when they are evidence based and implemented with

fidelity and integrety, meaning that you are collecting data and able to monitor a

student’s progress (Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2003).

Components of an evidence-based intervention. Evidence-based intervention

typically refers to research-based and manualized practices that have been tested using

experimental and control groups to establish causation and to assess the effects

(Hoagwood, 2003). In order to establish an intervention as being evidence-based, it must

go through rounds of development, similar to assessment, in order to ensure that the

intervention has both efficacy and effectiveness. Efficacy refers to how intervention

outcomes are produced in a research setting under controlled conditions (Shoenwald &

Hoagwood, 2001). Establishing efficacy takes rounds of trials and adjustments, just to

make sure that the intervention works in ideal conditions. Effectiveness, on the other

hand, refers to how intervention outcomes are produced in the environment that they are

intended. The move from efficacy to effectiveness is often tricky as we typically have

less control over the real world than we do in a lab setting (Walker, 2004). Making the

jump from efficacy to effectiveness is often where most interventions fail; however,

when they do succeed, they are then considered a good evidence-based intervention.


Having evidence-based interventions often ensures that the intervention is targeting the

area of need effectively.

Outside of being evidence-based, many other components influence the

effectiveness of an intervention. The implementer, or the person who carries out the

intervention, is often an important factor when considering intervention effectiveness.

Many candidates are available to serve as implementer; however, the majority of school-

based interventions are teacher-led (Peacock & Collet, 2011). This could mean that a

teacher has a packaged academic program with specific scripts and dosages that they use

with students or the teachers make adjustments in the classroom in order to help a student

succeed.

Although interventions come in many shapes and forms, an important component

of intervention effectiveness is intervention fidelity. This concept refers to the extent to

which an intervention is implemented as it is designed (Gearing et al., 2011). With the

amount of work that goes into designing an effective evidence-based intervention, it

makes sense that they will be most effective when they are implemented as designed. The

most important pieces when it comes to making sure that an intervention is implemented

correctly within a school setting include teacher support, administrative support, training

opportunities, and flexibility of the intervention designer (Forman, Olin, Hoagwood,

Crowe, & Saka, 2009). Having support both on an administrative and teaching level helps

to ensure that the intervention is both accepted and implemented within the school

building. Training opportunities allow those who implement the intervention to feel

confident as to how accurately they are implementing the intervention. This is especially


true when any interventions utilize technology, as many do currently. Flexibility from the

designer is also important because, as mentioned previously, it is difficult to have an

intervention make that leap from a lab to real life setting. A good developer will work

with their implementers and make changes to the intervention as necessary. Although

there are many moving factors when it comes to implementing an intervention, when

these factors all work together, an intervention is more likely to reach its intended levels

of success.

Another component that is critical when utilizing interventions is the population

with which the intervention will be used. In a school setting, this population includes

students who are struggling, either academically or behaviorally (Merrell, et al., 2011).

Students come into schools a complex young people, with their own set of knowledge,

history, and genetic predisposition that may make some interventions more effective than

other ones. Even when an intervention has gone through rounds of development to ensure

it is both efficacious and effective as well as when the intervention is implemented with

fidelity; it will not be truly effective unless it addresses the needs of the child. In order to

make sure that interventions are serving their purpose of helping children succeed, people

in the school who know their students must be involved in the problem-solving process.

Intervention Planning Teams and Pre-Referral

With the rise of intervention use through RTI, intervention has become the first

step when trying to problem-solve in the schools. This means that they are typically

considered and implemented before any referral for special education is made, at a pre-

referral meeting. Before IDEA 2004, directors of special education viewed pre-referral


meetings as the first step to an evaluation (Poland, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Mirkin, 1982).

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, schools were concerned about the amount of students being

placed in special education. In accordance with the ability-achievement discrepancy

model, students were being placed in special education at higher rates than schools were

able to finance and service (Decker, et al., 2013; Holdnack & Weiss, 2006). As a result,

schools began to implement meetings in order to help students beyond a “test and place”

model. These meetings were made up of teams consisting of teachers, administrators, and

other support staff, such as the school psychologist and are referred to as intervention

assistance teams (IAT), pre-referral intervention teams (PIT), student assistance teams

(SAT), and child study teams (CST; Burns, Vanderwood & Ruby, 2005; Kovaleski,

2002). Although these teams go by a variety of different names, which varies across

school systems, pre-referral teams are often used to help with the problem solving

process in schools (Long, 2013).

The purpose of pre-referral has evolved alongside the regulations for determining

special education placement. There are many purposes of the child study team, including

making decisions on who should be evaluated for special education services as well as

what interventions should be tried in the classroom. A variety of school personnel are

involved in these meetings, including: teacher, administrator, and other school staff such

as the school psychologist or reading and math specialists. Parents are also critical

participants in these meeting. The teacher or the parent are typically the ones who initiate

the problem-solving process, both of whom are around the student the most and

recognize that the student is struggling (Long, 2013; Poland, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, &

Mirkin, 1982). Once the referral is made, then the problem solving process can begin.


These teams consistently consider both referral for special education services as well as

intervention in a general education setting, looking for many solutions that may be able to

describe why a student is struggling.

All across America, child study meetings are used to address issues in the

classroom that may not necessarily be solved with special education. Within the southern

United States, 60.8% of teachers stated that most students that they refer are not referred

for special education and 43% did not expect an evaluation to be done because of a child

study meeting (Lee-Tarver, 2006). Similarly, in southern California, interventions were

the result of child study meetings. In this school system, as a result of the interventions

completed, 62.87% of students stayed in general education classroom while 34.32% went

to on the be referred for special education (Lane, Pierson, Robertson, & Little, 2004). In

Pennsylvania, instructional support teams were mandated and implemented across the

state and because of this, 83-85% of the students discussed at these meetings were not

referred on for special education (Kovaleski & Glew, 2006). Many schools have come a

long way with how they view and treat students who have difficulties with learning. Pre-

referral teams have helped students with a variety services beyond just being placed in

special education.

Using Assessment to Guide Intervention Selection

In recent years, schools have increasingly considered the role of interventions,

which are often first mentioned during pre-referral meetings. The NASP standards offer

guidance when it comes to selecting interventions, stating that, “school psychologists use

a problem-solving process to develop interventions appropriate to the presenting


problems and that are consistent with data collected” (NASP, 2010, p. 9). Assessments, at

their core, are designed for clinical decision-making (Decker, 2013). Test scores

objectively give information about a person’s functioning. For this reason, assessments

go through rounds of development and norming in order to ensure that they are both valid

and reliable; however, that does not ensure that an assessment has a link to real world

solutions. Assessments must also support prescriptive action, or being able to create a

treatment from the information produced by them.

Within a school setting, both standardized normative assessments used with

curriculum-based measures are tools that can help explain why a child is having

academic difficulties (Decker, 2008). Historically the data collected through assessments

has been used solely to make decisions about eligibility for special education; however, it

is reasonable to use assessment data in a more prescriptive way, by guiding intervention.

It also falls within the parameters of IDEA 2004, as well as from the 2009 Forest Grove

School District v T.A. Supreme Court ruling, to consider using available assessment

procedures in a deliberate manner to inform academic and behavioral interventions, prior

to consideration of eligibility (Dixon, Eusebio, Turton, Wright, & Hale, 2011). Similarly,

experts within the field of school psychology came to the consensus that assessments

should be used not only for identification, but also for intervention purposes (Hale et al,

2010). As intervention continues to play an increasingly larger role within schools, the

more data used to select interventions in students should be welcomed.

As stated previously, the role of the school psychologist is to “provide effective

services to help children and youth succeed academically, socially, behaviorally, and


emotionally” (NASP, 2010, p. 1). Through the many roles that school psychologists have,

they are, for the most part, successful in this; however, the world of education is

constantly changing. In order to ensure that the needs of children are met, school

psychologists must adapt to change and be ready to meet the needs of any child. With the

increasing focus on intervention and the historical tie to assessment, combining the two

roles could serve children better. By using processing assessments to gather further

information about a student’s strengths and needs, this information can better help guide

intervention selection that best fits the needs of the student. Psychologists would be able

to use assessments for prescriptive and preventative purposes rather than reactively trying

to find the cause of a problem. As problem solvers and decision makers, it would make

sense to use the tools that school psychologists have, including assessment and

intervention, in combination in order to help students succeed.

In order to investigate the role of school psychologists within the problem solving

process, intervention selection, and the role of assessment in guiding intervention

selection; a better understanding of current practices is needed. This study sought to

answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1. How do schools identify a student with a Specific Learning

Disability?

Research Question 2. How do schools utilize pre-referral meetings in the problem-solving

process?

Research Question 3. What interventions are used to help address the academic needs of

students and how are they chosen?


Research Question 4. When assessment is used to inform student’s strengths and

weaknesses during the problem solving team process, how does it influence the

intervention?

Research Question 5. How does using assessments to inform intervention improve

academic outcomes for students?

Research Question 6. How does using assessments to inform interventions influence

school psychologist’s role in the problem solving process?


Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited via their state organizations. Participants consisted of

73 school psychologists practicing in the state of Virginia. The survey was sent to 477

practicing psychologists in Virginia. The response rate to the survey was 15.03%. The

majority 85.93% (n=62) of participants were female and 15.06% (n=11) of participants

were male. The highest degree obtained by 89.04% (n=65) was an Educational Specialist

or Certificate of Advanced Study in School Psychology and 5.47% (n=4) of participants

indicated their highest level of degree attainment was a Ph.D. or Psy.D in School

Psychology. Other degrees that 5.47% (n=4) of participants had received included having

were Masters Degrees and Doctorate of Education. When asked how long they had

practiced as a school psychologist, 8.22% (n=6) practiced for 0-5 years, 12.33% (n=9)

practiced for 6-10 years, 20.55% (n=15) practiced for 11-15 years, 22.29% (n=17)

practiced for 16-20 years, and 35.61% (n=26) practiced for more than 21 years.

When asked in what types of settings they provide services, 24.65% (n=18) of

school psychologists indicated that they worked in urban school districts, 24.65% (n=18)

work in suburban school districts, and 50.68% (n=37) work in rural school districts.

When asked what level of school they provide services in, 34.25% (n=25) worked in all

levels of schools (e.g., preschool, elementary, middle, high), 10.96% (n=8) worked in

only elementary schools, and 2.74% (n=2) worked in only middle schools. Many

psychologists worked in a combination two of settings including, 9.59% (n=7) in

preschools and elementary schools, 8.23% (n=6) in elementary and middle schools,

6.84% (n=5) in elementary and high schools, and 2.74% (n=2) in middle and high


schools. Other psychologists worked in a combination of three settings including, 6.84%

(n=5) in elementary middle, and high schools, 10.95% (n=8) in preschools, elementary,

and middle schools, and 5.48% (n=4) in preschools, elementary, and high schools. The

remaining 2.21% (n=4) of psychologists indicated that they work in other settings,

including Child Find and alternative placement settings.

Materials

In order to answer the research questions, a 23-item survey was developed by the

researcher, which is included in written format in Appendix A. Qualtrics, a web-based

survey program, was used to create, collect, and store survey items and participant

responses. The survey items were presented in multiple-choice style formats, checklist-

style answer choices, and open-ended responses. These items were then summarized by

descriptive statistics, frequency charts, and text sorting generated from the Qualtrics

program.

Procedure

This study was completed online as a survey via Qualtrics. The survey was

administered via email to a database of school psychologists who had shared their email

with the Virginia Department of Education. The School psychologists in this database

were emailed by the researcher. The survey was also posted on the Maryland School

Psychology association website; however, only one incomplete response was obtained

and therefore was not included in the results. The researcher had also reached out to the

Florida Association of School Psychology, but received no response. The email

(Appendix B) included information about the purpose of the study, a link to participate in

the study, and contact information for the researcher. Informed consent was obtained


after the participants clicked on the survey link, at the beginning of the survey. The

survey contained various questions specific to the current professional practices of school

psychologists.


Results

The survey items were presented in multiple-choice style formats, checklist-style

answer choices, and open-ended responses. These items were then summarized by

descriptive statistics, frequency charts, and text sorting generated from the Qualtrics

program.

How do schools identify a student with a Specific Learning Disability?

When looking at how various schools determine if a child has a Specific Learning

Disability, there was no single reported way that schools make this decision. When

identifying students with SLD, 39.35% (n=28) of school psychologists indicated that

their schools use only the ability/achievement discrepancy model, 12.33% (n=9) use only

the RTI model, and 12.33% (n=9) use only alternative research based methods.

Combinations of models were also common with 15.07% (n=11) using all three

procedures, 15.07% (n=11) using both the ability/achievement discrepancy model and

RTI, 2.74% (n=2) using both the ability/achievement discrepancy model and alternative

research-based methods, and 4.11% (n=3) using both RTI and alternative research-based

methods. Of the 24 school psychologists who indicated that they use alternative research-

based methods, 8.33% (n=2) indicated that they used cross battery, 25.00% (n=6)

indicated that they use patterns of strengths and weaknesses, and 66.67% (n=16)

indicated that they use both cross battery and patterns of strengths and weaknesses.

How do schools utilize pre-referral meetings in the problem-solving process?

When asked, “Do your schools participate in child study/student study/pre-referral

meetings,” 100% (n=73) of school psychologists indicated that their schools participate

in pre-referral meetings. When a team is at the table for a pre-referral meeting, many


options are typically considered, as displayed in table 1. Multiple responses were allowed

for this question. Interventions are most often considered during the pre-referral meeting

as 89.04% (n=65) psychologists indicated that they consider interventions. Referral for

special education was the second most considered option at pre-referral with 60.27%

(n=44). Other options frequently considered were counseling services (43.83%, n=32),

FBA/BIP (39.73%, n=28), speech/language services (36.98%, n=27), and occupational

therapy (15.06%, n=11). Other services were considered 15.06% (n=11) of the time,

including 504 plan, attendance, rule outs (e.g., vision, hearing, medical concerns),

community services, Therapeutic Day Treatment (TDT), and RTI data.

Table 1.

What is typically considered during the pre-referral meeting?

School Psychologists’ Responses

Interventions 89.04%

Referral for Special Education 60.27%

Counseling Services 43.83%

FBA/BIP 39.73%

Speech Language Services 36.98%

Occupational Therapy 15.06%

Other 15.06%

What interventions are used to help address the academic needs of students and

how are they chosen?

When it comes time to choose interventions for students, there are many points in

time during the problem solving process to do so. About a third, 33.85% (n=22), of

school psychologists indicated that their schools consider interventions during all stages

of the problem solving process (e.g., pre-referral, during referral, after eligibility).

Another third, 36.92% (n=24), consider interventions during the pre-referral meeting.


Few psychologists 3.07% (n=2) consider interventions during the referral process. Less

than half of psychologists indicated that their schools consider interventions at a

combination of times throughout the problem solving process, with 9.23% (n=6) at pre-

referral and after eligibility, 9.23% (n=6) at pre-referral and during referral, and 1.53%

(n=1) consider interventions both during referral and after eligibility. Only 4.61% (n=3)

consider interventions at another point in time, one specifically stating that they have a

block in the school day for interventions. Only 1.53% (n=1) indicated that their schools

do not consider interventions at all.

When asked, “How do your schools select interventions for students,” 23 of 60

responses (38.33%) mentioned a student’s individual need, such as “focusing on

academic or behavior needs of the child” and “the teams look at the child's particular

weaknesses and strengths and look for interventions that will target the specific concern.”

Fourteen responses (23.33%) mentioned standardized tests (i.e., PALS, MAP, etc.) as

well as other classroom-based benchmarks, including “based on PALS results and other

county assessments” and “screening results, such as PALS, will trigger placement in a

specific intervention group.” Seven responses (11.67%) mentioned availability, such as

“typically dictated by what is available and widely used across the county” and “based on

what is available at the school”. Seven responses (11.67%) mentioned central office

decisions, including “Central Office Education specialists usually select for the district

and then push out to the schools” and “they are chosen at district level”. Seven responses

(11.67%) mentioned involvement of a specialist, including “interventions are selected by

our Student Intervention Specialists” and “through data meetings and input from reading

and math specialists.” Seven responses (11.67 %) mentioned a team decision, including


“teacher consultation, ‘child study’ discussion, [and] screenings” and “the child study

teams determine the needs of the child and come up with strategies and interventions.”

Six responses (10.00 %) mentioned RTI data and level, such as “based upon their RTI

data/tier and similar needs for a small group”. Six school psychologists (10.00%)

responded that they were not involved in intervention selection. Four responses (6.67%)

mentioned classroom data, including “interventions are selected based upon data

collection provided by their individual classroom teachers during the child study

meetings.”

When schools choose interventions in order to help students succeed, there are

many options available to them. Table 2 shows which academic interventions Virginia

school psychologists indicated their schools use. The most commonly selected

interventions included 17.30% (n=32) Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI), 11.89%

(n=22) READ 180, 9.37% (n=18) Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), 6.49%

(n=12) Quick Reads, and 5.95% (n=11) FASTT Math. Other interventions that School

Psychologists listed which were not available for selection included Wilson Reader,

iReady, Orton Gillingham, Language Live, Phonological Awareness and Literacy

Screening (PALS) tutoring supports, SPIRE Reading, SRI Reading, SMI Math, RISE,

Moving with Math, Everyday Math, LEXIA, and Words their Way.

Table 2.

What Academic Interventions do your Schools Utilize?


Other 22.16%

Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) 17.30%

READ 180 11.89%

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies 9.73%

Quick Reads 6.49%


FASTT Math 5.95%

Corrective Reading 4.86%

Read Naturally Live 3.78%

Voyager Passport 3.24%

Phonics for Reading 3.24%

System 44 2.70%

Early Numeracy 2.16%

Waterford 1.62%

Headsprout 1.62%

Number Worlds 1.08%

Math Wise 0.54%

Read Well 0.54%

Literacy in the Digital Age 0.54%

Number Rockets 0.54%

When asked, “What do you see as best practices when selecting academic

interventions for students,” 24 of 56 responses (42.85%) mentioned individual needs of

the child, such as “interventions match area(s) of deficit/need” and “meeting the student's

needs by selecting from a variety of programs, rather than giving each student the same

program.” Thirteen responses (23.21%) mentioned evidence-based interventions,

including “making sure the intervention is research based and effective for the problem

described” and “is it supported by research? Has it been successful when used with other

students?” Nine responses (16.07%) mentioned data collection, such as “data collection is

crucial to know whether or not the intervention is working or needs to be intensified or

terminated” and “teacher collected data that more specifically designates weaknesses as it

relates to the classroom/school curriculum.” Eight responses (14.28%) mentioned

implementation, including “research based interventions, age appropriate and

individualized with the student's strengths and weaknesses considered, monitoring for

success, and consistency in the implementation of interventions.” Six responses (10.71%)

mentioned classroom data and curriculum based, such as “using CBMs that are

appropriate relative to curriculum demands at different grade levels”. Two responses


(3.57%) mentioned caseloads of school psychologists, including “best practice likely has

school psychologists with much smaller caseloads that would allow them to use testing

for pre-referral intervention. That is not possible here due to the number of referrals for

special education.” Two responses (3.57%) mentioned a team decision, such as “a

problem solving team approach. Members of the team should understand the types of

interventions available and the teacher should be able to explain the difficulty the student

is experiencing.”

When assessment is used to inform student’s strengths and weaknesses during the

problem solving team process, how does it influence the intervention?

When asked, “do your schools use processing assessments before eligibility is

considered in order to guide academic intervention selection,” 22.73% (n=15) of school

psychologists indicated that they did, 68.18% (n=45) indicated that they did not, and

9.09% (n=6) responded other, such as “less than 30%”, “in unique cases only”, and

“occasionally.” The 21 participants who responded “yes” and “other” to this question

were presented the remainder of the questions in the survey. The 45 participants who

responded “no” were taken to the question “Should processing assessments be used not

only for identification but for intervention purposes as well” and the end of the survey.

The most commonly used assessments to inform interventions, displayed in Table

3, included, Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3, 18.18%,

n=12), Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2,

18.18%, n=12), Conners-3 (16.67%, n=11). Other assessments/subtests that school

psychologists listed which were not available for selection included Woodcock Johnson

Test of Cognitive Abilities, Fourth Edition (WJ-IV), Woodcock Johnson Oral Language


Tests (WJ-IV Oral), Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration,

Sixth Edition (VMI), Bender Gestalt, and Test of Visual Perceptual Sills, Fourth Edition

(TVPS-4). Other behavior rating scales that school psychologists listed which were not

available for selection included the Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree (EDDT),

Children’s Depression Inventory, Second Edition (CDI-2), and Revised Children’s

Manifest Anxiety Scale, Second Edition (RCMAS-2). Other tests of memory and

attention that school psychologists listed which were not available for selection included

the Conners Continuous Performance Test, Third Edition (CPT-3) and Conners Kiddie

Continuous Performance Test, Second Edition (KCPT-2). Other tests of auditory

processing that school psychologists listed where were not available for selection

included the Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR).


Table 3.

Which Assessments do you typically use to Inform Intervention during the Problem

Solving Process?


Behavior Assessment System for Children,

third edition (BASC-3)

18.18%

Comprehensive Test of Phonological

Processing, second edition (CTOPP-2)

18.18%

Conners-3 16.67%

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive

Functioning, second edition (BRIEF-2)

9.09%

Other assessments/subtests not listed 7.58%

Wide Range Assessment of Memory and

Learning, second edition (WRAML-2)

7.58%

Test of Auditory Processing Skills, third

edition (TAPS-3)

4.55%

Select subtests of A Developmental

Neuropsychological Assessment, second

edition (NEPSY-2)

4.55%

Other tests of memory and attention 4.55%

Children’s Memory Scale (CMS) 3.03%

Other tests of auditory processing 3.03%

Other behavior rating scale 1.52%

Select subtests of Delis-Kaplan Executive

Function System (D-KEFS)

1.52%

When asked, “Should processing assessments be used not only for identification

but for intervention purposes as well”, 22.22% (n=14) strongly agreed, 36.51% (n=23)

somewhat agreed, 12.70% (n=8) neither agreed nor or disagreed, 23.81% (n=15)

somewhat disagreed, and 4.76% (n=3) strongly disagreed.

How does using assessments to inform intervention improve academic outcomes for

students?

When asked, “In what ways does using processing assessments to guide

interventions improve the way students are identified for special education”, 4 out of 11

responses (36.36%) mentioned strengths and weaknesses, including “to determine


significant processing weaknesses and strengths which guide interventions.”. Three

responses (27.27%) mentioned special education eligibility, such as “we cannot qualify a

student under SLD without a processing deficit. Interventions can be developed to

improve some processing deficits, such as phonological processing.” Three responses

(27.27%) mentioned increased data, including “gives us more targeted data to consider

for intervention.” Three responses (27.27%) mentioned processing information, such as

“processing assessments help specify processing deficits and guide interventions,

eligibility and/or IEP goals.” Two responses (18.18%) mentioned guiding IEP goals,

including “it helps guide what accommodations and goals will be addressed in the IEP for

students identified with specific processing weaknesses.” Two responses (18.18%)

mentioned progress monitoring, such as we use them for progress monitoring to

determine if a student should be referred due to insufficient progress.”

How does using assessments to inform interventions influence school psychologist’s

role in the problem solving process?

When asked, “How many extra hours a week does using processing assessments

to guide interventions take you,” 92.31% (n=12) responded 0-5 hours while one (7.69%)

responded 11-15 hours. When asked, “How many cases per year do you use processing

assessments to guide intervention”, 7.69% (n=1) responded 1-2 cases a year, 23.08%

(n=3) responded 3-5 cases a year, 7.69% (n=1) responded 11-15 cases a year, 23.08%

(n=3) responded 16-20 cases a year, and 38.46% (n=5) responded 20 or more cases a

year.

When asked, “How does this process improve your role in the pre-referral team

process,” seven of 11 responses (63.63%) mentioned increased understanding of a


student, including “provides team members with a better understanding of the student and

their needs.” Three responses (27.27%) mentioned that they are not involved in the pre-

referral process. One response (18.18%) simply stated, “I am part of the team.”

When asked, “How does this process fit with what you do as a school

psychologist,” five of 11 responses (45.45%) mentioned assessment, such as “I am able

to administer many of the assessments that would help guide interventions; however, my

main role is evaluating students. We are fortunate to have Title I in our schools so they

help administer these assessments to monitor progress and provide information to our

child study teams.” Four responses (36.36%) mentioned helping children, including

“determining how we can better help kids learn.” Three responses (27.27%) mentioned

intervention, such as “fits well within the assessment and intervention role.” Two

responses (27.27%) mentioned individual needs of a student, including “Processing

assessments help me better serve students in identifying the needs of the individual.”


Discussion

This study serves as an investigation into the role of school psychologists within

the problem solving process, intervention selection, and the role of assessment may have

to guide intervention selection. School psychologists have numerous roles within the

school setting, which include assessment and intervention. This study surveyed school

psychologists in Virginia in order to see how those roles are utilized in day-to-day

practice.

The first research question looked at how schools determine a Specific Learning

Disability. IDEA 2004 states that schools “must not require the use of a severe

discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child

has a specific learning disability” (IDEA, 2004 §300.307). Even though schools cannot

require the use of a discrepancy model, the majority of school psychologists reported that

their schools use the ability/achievement discrepancy model either on its own or in

combination with other models to determine SLD eligibility. Numerous studies have

shown that the ability-achievement model is ineffective (Feifer & DeFina, 2000; Fiefer &

Della Tofallo, 2007; Hale et al., 2010; Vellutino et al., 1996); however, because it has

been around the longest, it seems that many districts have not given up traditional and

familiar ways of identifying SLD. This may have implications for school psychologists to

promote identification procedures with their systems which match with best practices

within the field.

Although “other alternative research-based based procedures”, including PSW,

was recommended by experts within the field of school psychology as the most clinically

sound procedure (Hale et al., 2010), less than half of psychologists in this survey


responded their district uses this method. Of those who did respond saying they used this

third procedure, the majority indicated that they did use a pattern of psychological

strengths and weaknesses.

The second research question looked at how schools utilize pre-referral meetings.

One hundred percent of psychologists responded that their schools participate in pre-

referral meetings. The majority of psychologists reported options outside of referral for

special education were made at these meetings; with the main option considered being

intervention. This lines up with previous research, as other schools across the country

reported that they did not use pre-referral meetings for referrals for special education

(Kovaleski & Glew, 2006; Lane, et al., 2004). While special education is still sometimes

brought up during these meetings, the pre-referral meeting is identified an important first

step in the problem solving process where a variety of options are considered.

The third research question looked at how interventions address the academic

needs of students. All but one psychologist indicated that their schools utilize

interventions. Academic interventions are also frequently utilized at any point in the

problem solving process. When talking about how academic interventions are chosen, the

main theme was that interventions should match the individual student. Many of the

school psychologists also saw this as best practices when selecting interventions for

students. The purpose of an intervention is to help a student make gains in an area of

weakness or need (Merrell, et al., 2011). It therefore makes sense that the needs of the

individual should be what drive intervention selection.

NASP principles for ethical practices also state that psychologists should use a

variety of data sources in order to aid in their decision-making (NASP, 2010). Another


common theme highlighted in psychologists’ answers when it comes to how they select

interventions and what they see as best practices, was the use of curriculum-based

measures and other sources of classroom data when selecting interventions. Interventions

are typically data-driven and require constant tracking of data (Merrell, et al., 2011). The

data that is collected throughout the intervention helps to ensure that the intervention is

being implemented effectively and with fidelity, which are imperative to the success of

the intervention, and as such, the success of the child.

When it came to best practices in selecting intervention, many psychologists

voiced concerns around intervention implementation. Although having evidence-based

interventions theoretically would produce desired outcome, whether that be academic or

behavioral, many pieces get in the way of an intervention being effective. Having an

intervention effectively implemented in a school building is a challenge in itself. It is

estimated that within the field of mental health, it takes about 20 years for an intervention

to be developed and implemented into routine practice (Hoagwood, 2003). With the

amount of research that is produced every year around evidence-based interventions, this

number seems shocking; however, there are many reasons that a school may be hesitant

to adopt an intervention. One of the main reasons an intervention may not be adopted is

the climate of the school (Foreman, et al., 2009). If a school’s climate is not accepting of

change or philosophically does not agree with how an intervention works, then that

intervention will likely never be successful in that building. Another important factor in

the failure of interventions is the role of the implementer. If an intervention is costly,

either financial or simply takes a lot of time to complete, the implementer may be unable

or unwilling to implement the intervention with fidelity. All of these factors frequently


interfere with the success of interventions, and that is seen by practicing school

psychologists.

The fourth research question looked at how assessment is used to inform students’

strengths and weaknesses in order to inform intervention. The majority of school

psychologists do not practice this way; however, the majority of school psychologists had

favorable views towards the potential of using assessments to inform interventions. Of

the psychologists who did use assessments to inform intervention, Behavior Rating scales

were the most commonly used followed by tests of phonological or auditory processing.

Although assessments are traditionally used for eligibility purposes, this is not the only

way that assessments have been utilized within a school setting.

The fifth research question looked at how using assessment to inform intervention

improves outcomes for students. The overarching theme in this was identifying a

student’s strengths and weaknesses. As mentioned previously, the goal of assessment is

to determine a student’s strengths and needs objectively and the goal of intervention is to

target those specific needs. Assessments are meant to have prescriptive action, meaning

that they are supposed to create a treatment from the data gathered by them (Decker,

2013). Targeted and intense interventions are agreed to be necessary to help students with

learning difficulties (Hale, et al., 2010). As such, using assessment data to guide

intervention selection fulfills the role of prescriptive action and helps to meet a student’s

needs.

The sixth research question looked at how using assessment to inform

interventions influences the role of the school psychologist in the problem solving

process. Of those who practice this way, it does not appear to be a weighty burden to


their caseload. Using assessment to guide intervention did not add more than 15 hours a

week. The number of cases that psychologist used assessment to inform intervention

varied from 1-2 to more than 20 a year. The majority of psychologists also reported that it

helps understand a student’s individual needs, which as discovered previously, is

important when determining which academic intervention best fits a student. Assessment

is typically the primary role for school psychologists (Merrell, et al., 2011). Although

intervention often takes a close second, many school psychologists do not get to spend as

much time in this role as they would like. By using processing assessments to guide

intervention selection, school psychologists are able to fulfill two roles at once while also

achieving the larger goal of helping students succeed academically, socially,

behaviorally, and emotionally.

Overall results suggest increasing use of assessments to inform intervention

during pre-referral meetings is worthy of more consideration. Assessment continues to

play a large role within the field of school psychology, especially when it comes to

understanding the individual needs of a child. Interventions are designed to target a

child’s needs, and it is agreed on amongst school psychologists that this is best practices.

Therefore, using assessment to inform intervention may be a direction for school

psychological services to move toward as more systems develop multi-tiered systems of

support for intervention.

Limitations

The findings of this study are restricted to school psychologists who practice in

the state of Virginia. This study was originally aimed to compare how school

psychologists practice between states, specifically looking at Virginia, Maryland, and


Florida. There was no difficulty in obtaining participants from Virginia. Although the

survey was posted on the Maryland School Psychology Association website, only one

school psychologist from Maryland responded to the survey. This participant, however,

did not complete the survey; therefore, their data is not included in the findings. The

researcher also attempted to have the survey distributed to school psychologists in

Florida; however, there was no response. Although the results of the Virginia

psychologists were insightful, being able to compare how psychologists practice between

states would have provided an extra level of understanding. Since each state is able to set

some of their own guidelines about how assessments and interventions are used, it would

have been informative to gather data about how school psychologists in each of these

states practice.

Additionally, there may have been some confusion around the wording of some of

the questions, specifically around the questions regarding using assessment to guide

intervention selection. The intention was to investigate how school psychologists use

assessments to guide intervention selection during pre-referral; however, there were

mentions of eligibility decisions within participants’ written responses. By adding

clarification within the questions, specifically mentioning pre-referral within the

questions, responses may have reflected more about how assessment can be used to guide

intervention selection before eligibility for special education is considered.

Participants who responded to the survey may have been more invested in the

topic than other potential participants who elected not to participate in the study. The

survey design relied on knowledge of a school psychologist’s current district and school

system, knowledge about best practices in the field of school psychology, and their own


personal experiences with assessment and intervention. As such, some information may

have been difficult to recall for some participants.

Recommendations for Future Research

With the limitations stated, future research that investigates how school

psychologists practice in states outside of Virginia would be recommended in order to

determine the differences between states practice. As each state has its own guidelines

around intervention and assessment, it would be beneficial to investigate how

psychologists across the country differ in practice as the field of school psychology

continues to evolve. Such research would allow for better understanding of how school

psychologists practice, how best practices are conceptualized and utilized, and what

trends are occurring in the fields of assessment and intervention.

Another way to further this research would be application within the field of

school psychology. As the results indicated, few psychologists use processing

assessments to guide intervention selection. Implementation of this model in the field

would yield more data about how student outcomes are directly affected. Being able to

monitor this model would yield data on how successful assessments were able to guide

intervention, as well as how effective that intervention was when it was guided by

assessment data. Research at this level could provide guidance to best practices in school

psychology as well as how the model would fit into schools on a day-to-day basis.


References

Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M. L., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of pre-

referral intervention teams for use in a problem solving model. School Psychology

Quarterly, 20(1), 89-105. Retrieved from: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-

03500-005

Decker, S.L. (2008). Intervention psychometrics: Using norm-referenced methods for

treatment and planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(1), 52-61.

doi:10.1177/1534508408314177

Decker, S. L., Hale, J. B., & Flanagan, D. P. (2013). Professional practice issues in the

assessment of cognitive functioning for educational applications. Psychology in

the Schools, 50(3), 300-313. doi:10/1002/pits.21675

Decker, S. L. (2013). Testing: The measurement and assessment link. In D.H. Saklofske,

C.R. Reynolds, & V.L. Schwean (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Child

Psychological Assessment (pp 30-47). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dixon, S. G., Eusebio, E. C., Turton, W. J., Wright, P. W., & Hale, J. B. (2011). Forest

Grove School District v. TA Supreme Court case: Implications for school

psychology practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(2), 103-113.

doi:10.1177/0734282910388598

Feifer, S.G. & DeFina, P.A. (2000). The neuropsychology of reading disorders:

Diagnosis and Intervention. Frederick, MD: School Neuropsych Press,

Incorporated

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910388598


Feifer, S. G., & Della Toffalo, D. A. (2007). Integrating RTI with cognitive

neuropsychology: A scientific approach to reading. Frederick, MD: School

Neuropsych Press, Incorporated

Fletcher, J.M., Barth, A.E., & Steubing, K.K. (2011). A response to intervention (RTI)

approach to SLD identification. In D.P. Flanagan and V.C. Alfonso (Eds),

Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification (pp 115-144). Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. (2009). Evidence-

based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and

facilitators. School Mental Health, 1(1), 26-36. doi:10.1007/s12310-008-9002-5

Gearing, R. E., El-Bassel, N., Ghesquiere, A., Baldwin, S., Gillies, J., & Ngeow, E.

(2011). Major ingredients of fidelity: A review and scientific guide to improving

quality of intervention research implementation. Clinical psychology

review, 31(1), 79-88. doi:10.1016/jcpr.2010.09.007

Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., … & Dumont, R.

(2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and

specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white

paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223-236.

doi:10.1177/073194871003300310

Hoagwood, K. (2003). Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health: Its

meaning, application and limitations. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in

Youth, 4(1), 7-11.

https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300310


Holdnack, J. A., & Weiss, L. G. (2006). IDEA 2004: Anticipated implications for clinical

practice—integrating assessment and intervention. Psychology in the

Schools, 43(8), 871-882. doi:10.1002/pits.20194

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 et

seq. (2004).

Kovaleski, J. F. (2002). Best practices in operating pre-referral intervention teams. Best

practices in school psychology IV(1), 645-655.

Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale:

Implications of the pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special

Education, 27(1), 16-25. doi:10.1177/07419325060270010301

Kratochwill, T. R., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Promoting

evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology

Quarterly, 18(4), 389-408. Retrieved from: http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2004-

12787-004

Lane, K., Pierson, M., Robertson, E., & Little, A. (2004). Teachers’ views of prereferral

interventions: Perceptions of and recommendations for implementation

support. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 420-439. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42899815

Lee-Tarver, A. (2006). A survey of teachers’ perceptions of the function and purpose of

student support teams. Education, 126(3), 525-533.

https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270010301


Long, L. (2013). The student study team process: Impact on academic

achievement (Doctoral thesis-California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock,

California). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1413294130?accountid=11667

Merrell, K. W., Ervin, R. A., & Peacock, G. G. (2011). School psychology for the 21st

century: Foundations and practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

National Association of School Psychologists (2010). National association of school

psychologists principles for professional ethics. Retrieved from:

http://www.nasponline.org/standards-and-certification/professional-ethics

Peacock, G. G., & Collett, B. R. (2011). Collaborative home/school interventions:

Evidence-based solutions for emotional, behavioral, and academic problems.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Poland, S. F., Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Mirkin, P. K. (1982). Current

psychoeducational assessment and decision-making practices as reported by

directors of special education. Journal of School Psychology, 20(3), 171-179.

doi:10.1016/0022-4405(82)90046-2

Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and

dissemination of interventions: What matters when? Psychiatric services, 52(9),

1190-1197. Retrieved from:

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1190

Sotelo-Dynega, M., Flanagan, D.P., & Alfonso, V.C. (2011). Overview of specific

learning disabilities. In D.P. Flanagan and V.C. Alfonso (Eds), Essentials of

https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(82)90046-2


Specific Learning Disability Identification (pp 1-19). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved October 29, 2015,

from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-

files/index.html#bcc.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., &

Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily

remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing

between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading

disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601-638.

Walker, H. M. (2004). Commentary: Use of evidence-based interventions in schools:

Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. School Psychology

Review, 33(3), 398. Retrieved from:

https://search.proquest.com/openview/fe9a0b3ccdc7da6d6e7f57990e865cd7/1?pq

-origsite=gscholar&cbl=48217

Zirkel, P. A. (2012). The legal dimension of RTI: Part II–State laws and guidelines. RTI

Action Network. Retreived from: http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-

dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bcc

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bcc


Appendix A

Survey Items

Identification of Investigators & Purpose of Study

You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Rachel Larkin from

James Madison University. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of school

psychologists within the problem solving process as well as look at how various districts

determine which interventions to use. This study will contribute to the researcher’s

completion of her Ed.S. Thesis

Research Procedures

This study consists of an online survey that will be administered to individual participants

through email using Qualtrics (an online survey tool). You will be asked to provide

answers to a series of questions related to the role of school psychologists within the

problem solving process as well as look how various districts determine which

interventions to use in the problem solving process. Time Required Participation in this

study will require 15 minutes of your time.

Risks

The investigator does not perceive more than minimal risks from your involvement in

this study (that is, no risks beyond the risks associated with everyday life).

Benefits

Potential benefits from participation in this study include increasing the understanding of

how pre-referral meetings are conducted as well as how interventions are chosen and

measured in schools in order to help students get the best services-service delivery. There

are no direct benefits to the participants.

Confidentiality

The results of this research will be presented at a symposium or conference. While

individual responses are anonymously obtained and recorded online through the Qualtrics

software, data is kept in the strictest confidence. No identifiable information will be

collected from the participant and no identifiable responses will be presented in the final

form of this study. All data will be stored in a secure location only accessible to the

researcher. The researcher retains the right to use and publish non-identifiable data. At

the end of the study, all records will be destroyed. Final aggregate results will be made

available to participants upon request.

Participation & Withdrawal

Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should

you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any

kind. However, once your responses have been submitted and anonymously recorded you

will not be able to withdraw from the study.

Questions about the Study

If you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study, or

after its completion or you would like to receive a copy of the final aggregate results of

this study, please contact:


Rachel Larkin, M.A.

Graduate Psychology

James Madison University

[email protected]

Dr. Debi Kipps-Vaughan, Psy, D.

Graduate Psychology


Telephone: (540) 568-4557

[email protected]

Questions about Your Rights as a Research Subject

Dr. David Cockley

Chair, Institutional Review Board


(540) 568-2834

[email protected]

Giving of Consent

I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about this study. I have read this

consent and I understand what is being requested of me as a participant in this study. I

certify that I am at least 18 years of age. By clicking on the link below, and completing

and submitting this anonymous survey, I am consenting to participate in this research.

Rachel Larkin, M.A.__________________ __11/14/2017___

Name of Researcher (Printed) Date

This study has been approved by the IRB, protocol # 18-0282.

Demographics

1. What gender do you identify as?

a. Male

b. Female

c. Other

2. What level of training do you have?

a. Ed.S./CAS/Specialist level

b. Ph,D./Psy,D.

c. Other

3. How many years have you been practicing school psychology

a. 0-5 years

b. 6-10 years

c. 11-25 years


d. 16-20 years

e. 21+years

4. What state do you practice in?

a. Virginia

b. Maryland

c. Florida

d. Other

5. How would you describe the area you work in?

a. Urban

b. Suburban

c. Rural

6. What types of schools do you work in?

a. Preschool

b. Elementary

c. Middle

d. High

e. Other

Special Ed/Interventions

1. Which option best describes your state regulations for identification of students

with a Specific Learning Disability

a. Ability/Achievement Discrepancy Model

b. Response to Intervention

c. Alternative research-based procedures

2. What alternative research-based procedures do you use in the identification of

Specific Learning Disability?

a. Cross Battery

b. Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

c. Other

3. Do your schools participate in child study/student study/pre-referral (or similarly

named) meetings?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Other

4. What is typically considered during pre-referral meetings?

a. Interventions

b. Referral for special education

c. FBA/BIP

d. Counseling services

e. Speech/Language

f. Occupational therapy

g. Other

5. What academic interventions do your schools utilize?


a. Leveled Literacy Intervention

(LLI)

n. Kaleidoscope

b. Read 180 o. Waterford

c. Read Naturally Live p. Math Wise

d. iLit q. Pirate Math

e. Literacy in the Digital Age r. Solve It!

f. System 44 s. Number Rockets

g. Peer Assisted Learning

Strategies (PALS)

t. Above and Beyond with Digi

Blocks

h. Headsprout u. Early Numeracy

i. Corrective Reading v. FASTT Math

j. Phonics for Reading w. Number Worlds

k. Voyager Passport x. Understanding Math

l. Quick Reads y. Other

m. Read Well

6. How do your schools select interventions for students?

7. At what point in the decision-making process does your school consider academic

interventions?

a. Pre-referral

b. During referral

c. After eligibility

d. Not at all

e. Other

Integrated Assessment

1. Do your schools use processing assessments (i.e., behavior scales, CTOPP-2,

WRAML-2) before eligibility is considered in order to guide academic

intervention selection for students?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Other

2. Which assessments do you typically use to inform intervention during the

problem solving process?

a. Behavior Assessment System for Children, third edition (BASC-3)

b. Conners-3

c. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning, second edition

(BRIEF-2)

d. Achenbach rating scales

e. Other behavior rating scale

f. Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, second edition

(WRAML-2)

g. Children's Memory Scale (CMS)

h. other tests of memory and attention


i. Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Processing, second edition (CTOPP-

2)

j. Test of Auditory Processing Skills, third edition (TAPS-3)

k. other tests of auditory processing

l. select subtests of A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment,

second edition (NEPSY-2)

m. select subtests of Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)

n. other tests of neurological functioning

o. other assessments/subtests not listed

3. How many hours a week does using processing assessments to inform

intervention take you?

a. 0-5

b. 6-10

c. 11-15

d. 15+

4. How many cases per year do you use processing assessment to guide intervention

selection?

a. 1-2

b. 3-5

c. 6-10

d. 11-15

e. 16-20

f. 20+

5. In what ways does using processing assessment to guide interventions improve

the way students are identified for special education?

6. How does this process improve your role in the pre-referral team processes?

7. How does this process fit with what you do in the role of school psychologist?

8. Should processing assessments be used not only for identification but for

intervention purposes as well?

a. Strongly agree

b. Somewhat agree

c. Neither agree nor disagree

d. Somewhat disagree

e. Strongly disagree

9. What do you see as best practices when selecting academic interventions for

students?


Appendix B

Sample email to be sent to participants

Hello,

My name is Rachel Larkin and I am a third year student at James Madison University’s

School Psychology Program. I am currently working on my Ed.S. thesis, investigating how

school psychologists use psycho-educational assessments in order to inform

interventions for students. The following link contains a survey looking into how various

school districts utilize assessments and interventions, which will not take more than 15

minutes to complete:

http://jmu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bp7Z04hzsg7ppVX

Thank you for your participation,

Rachel Larkin, M.A.

Ed.S. Candidate, School Psychology


http://jmu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bp7Z04hzsg7ppVX

the school psychologist’s role in the problem solving

Documents